4.  The applicant, Ms Nina Ivanovna Zakharova, is a Russian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Voronezh.
5.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
6.  The applicant’s employer allocated her a flat. However, the flat was unlawfully occupied by other persons. In 1994 civil proceedings were initiated to evict these persons.
7.  On 16 November 2000 the Kominternovskiy District Court upheld the applicant’s right to the flat and ordered eviction of unlawful residents.
8.  On 17 April 2001 the judgment was enforced and the applicant moved into the flat which was, however, in a state of disrepair.
9.  By judgment of 13 May 2002, the Kominternovskiy District Court ordered the housing maintenance service to carry out repairs in the flat. On 3 October 2002 the judgment was upheld on appeal and became enforceable.
10.  On 23 October 2003 enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment was not enforced. The applicant bought the necessary materials and equipment at her own expense and sued the housing service for compensation. By judgment of 26 April 2004, the Kominternovskiy District Court granted her claim in part and made an award against the housing maintenance service with regard to the costs of the applicant relating to the acquisition of materials for repairs. The court also held that the argument of the housing maintenance service according to which the applicant had hindered the enforcement procedure should be rejected. According to the applicant, the payment was effected without undue delay but it covered only a portion of the actual costs.
11.  On 15 December 2003 the applicant lodged a claim against the Ministry of Finance before the Basmanniy District Court of Moscow. She sought to recover compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage incurred through the excessive length of proceedings in the housing dispute.
12.  On 21 January 2004 the Basmanniy District Court disallowed the applicant’s claim. Referring to the Constitutional Court’s Ruling of 25 January 2001, the District Court noted that the Parliament had not yet adopted a law determining jurisdiction over claims concerning State liability for the damage caused by a court’s or judge’s failure to adjudicate a case within a reasonable time. For that reason the District Court held, relying on Article 134 § 1 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, that the applicant’s claim could not be examined in civil proceedings.
13.  On 2 June 2004 the Moscow City Court upheld the decision to disallow the applicant’s claim.
14.  On 22 December 2003 the applicant lodged a claim against the Voronezh Department of the Ministry of Finance and the Voronezh Regional Court before the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh. She sought to recover compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage incurred through the excessive length of proceedings in the housing dispute.
15.  On 15 January 2004 the Leninskiy District Court of Voronezh disallowed the applicant’s claim on the ground that the legislator had not yet determined which courts would be competent to examine claims for compensation by the State of the damage incurred through unlawful judicial actions.
16.  On 7 June 2004 the Lipetsk Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision in the part concerning the rejection of her claim against the Voronezh Regional Court, but remitted the remainder for a new consideration.
17.  On 21 June 2004 the Leninskiy District Court returned the statement of claim to the applicant. The applicant did not appeal.
18.  On 17 December 1998 the applicant sued her employer for an increase of her salary and payment of arrears.
19.  On 11 June 2002 the Tsentralniy District Court of Voronezh rejected her claims.
20.  In 1999 the applicant was dismissed and challenged her dismissal before the courts which rejected her claim by a final judgment of 26 April 2001.